An inescapable element of a social media age, memes are everywhere, but are they all harmless? What about the ones that employ Scripture, especially for political ends?
Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #187 of Discerning What Is Best, a podcast applying unchanging biblical principles in a rapidly changing world, and a Christian worldview to current issues and everyday life.
Meme is a word most of us would not have recognized ten years ago. Now they’re a daily occurrence.
The word meme was first coined by British evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins in his 1976 book, The Selfish Gene. He derived the term from the Greek word "mimema," which means "that which is imitated." For Dawkins, a meme referred to a unit of cultural transmission or imitation, such as an idea, behavior, style, or practice that spread within a culture, e.g., melodies, religious beliefs, catchphrases, or fashion trends.
More recently in the 21st century, internet memes are now understood as visual, textual, or video content that spreads virally online, often through humor, satire, or commentary on societal or cultural phenomena.
Visit any social media platform, and you’ll see images of animals, people, landscapes, you name it, usually along with some printed observation that makes a joke, takes a potshot at a political rival, celebrates some human event or achievement. The uses of memes are limitless.
Since this is audio podcast, I can’t put a few memes up on screen for you to see, but I think you understand what I’m talking about. Memes can be funny, serious, insightful, honoring and honorable, and because we’re human beings, memes can also be ill-advised and unwise, offensive, vulgar, mean, pornographic, derogatory and more.
So, what about memes? First, there’s no “Thou shalt not meme” in the Bible. Memes, of course, did not exist when Scripture was written. But the use of images as such existed, and images are not condemned in Scripture, nor considered intrinsically evil, though we are warned not to make graven images or idols out of that which we artistically create.
So, like anything else we engage in life, memes should be something we consider carefully, and about which use good discernment. In other words, it’s possible to use them harmlessly or harmfully, or wisely or unwisely.
As I said at the top, memes can be funny or make thoughtful points. I’m not “against memes,” nor is this some kind of legalistic anti-meme screed. I’m just thinking aloud with you about something that has become a part of contemporary life.
Since 2024 was a presidential election year, political memes dominated social media. But I’m not sure 2025 and thereafter will be much different. Biden memes, Harris memes, Trump memes, they’re endless.
Scripture offers several straightforward comments about Christian involvement in what we call politics.
For example,
These verses, and there are many others, teach us that Christians should care, be involved in politics and government as they deem appropriate, and trust God in all of this. So again, nothing here that suggests Christians who produce memes with political messages are somehow acting improperly.
But as I said earlier, it is possible to create memes, just like it is possible to speak or write, in a manner that is indeed an improper application of Scripture.
I confess the memes that make me uncomfortable are those that quote Scripture alongside highly partisan presentations, or ones that use Scripture or biblical imagery alongside candidates as if to bless that person as God’s choice for the office. I am even more uncomfortable with memes that basically offer not Christian but civil religion, memes that wrap the candidate in the Bible and the flag. Worst of all, there are memes that I consider sacrilegious.
Interestingly, as I was thinking about this topic and did some research in the past week, I found few memes portraying Mr. Biden or Ms. Harris in association with Christian themes or imagery. A few, but very few. Meanwhile, I found almost innumerable such memes portraying Mr. Trump in association with Christian themes or imagery.
Now let’s pause for a disclaimer: I want to talk about memes that mix or apply Christian themes or imagery alongside given candidates, mostly Mr. Trump, without this being heard as a) me blaming Mr. Trump, or b) me attacking Mr. Trump or his policies. Partisanship and politicking are not my points here.
What I want to focus upon is us discerning together whether given memes are appropriate or wise. I wish I could show you visuals, but in lieu of this, think of memes this way: memes I consider—
So, memes that make me uncomfortable—Think of memes in which Mr. Trump is being hugged by Jesus or wherein Jesus is standing with his hand on a seated Mr. Trump’s shoulder. Or another one depicting Jesus and Mr. Trump walking on water. Uncomfortable? I am.
What about civil religion? Think of memes depicting Jesus sitting beside Mr. Trump in a courtroom, or Jesus embracing Mr. Trump in the Oval Office or standing ethereally behind Mr. Trump who is seated at the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office with the meme captioned: “Jesus is guiding Trump; Democrats and Satan are trying to stop him.
Finally, there are memes I find so offensive and impious I label them sacrilegious. One meme shows Jesus hanging on the cross in the background and Mr. Trump standing victoriously in front of him—I don’t even know what this means.
Another meme depicts Mr. Trump as a great image in the sky above a crowd of people while heavenly aura beams out from Mr. Trump’s image. I guess this one is attempting to make Mr. Trump a deity. There are memes in which Jesus wears a MAGA hat, memes where Mr. Trump is dressed in a white robe, hands folded in prayer and a halo glowing around his head.
One blasphemous meme depicts a shirtless Mr. Trump wearing a crown of thorns and hanging on a cross alongside a caption: “I drained the swamp. Promises kept. They had me impeached. Jesus wept…Never…forget.”
Then there’s the meme that portrays Mr. Trump in a white robe wearing a crown of thorns with a cross on a wall behind him. Strangely, four or five Jesus characters stand behind him.
Lastly, a profane meme portrays a dark-haired Mr. Trump, presumably to resemble Jesus, with his hand raised like a pope and a caption: “He shall rise again in 2024.”
I know it is more difficult to follow this on audio than to see these memes in visuals. Just do a search like “Trump and Christian memes” or “Trump and Jesus memes.” Then go into the image pages and you will see some of the memes I’ve highlighted and more. Draw your own conclusions on whether any of these make you feel uncomfortable or are indeed sacrilegious, irreverent, or desecration.
Again, I am not saying all memes are bad or wrong or unspiritual. I’m not blaming Mr. Trump for these memes. I’d make the same observations if my image was being propagandized as somehow especially blessed by Jesus. Toward good discernment, remember these points:
Blessings to you.
Well, we’ll see you again soon. This podcast is about Discerning What Is Best. If you find this thought-provoking and helpful, follow us on your favorite podcast platform. Download an episode for your friends. For more Christian commentary, check my website, r-e-x-m as in Martin, that’s rexmrogers.com. Or check my YouTube channel @DrRexRogers for more podcasts and video.
And remember, it is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm.
© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2025
*This podcast blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact me or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com/ or my YouTube channel @DrRexRogers, or connect with me at www.linkedin.com/in/rexmrogers or https://x.com/RexMRogers.
Women and some men are posting on social media images and videos of themselves, which is predictable, but have you noticed their justifications and rationales for doing so?
Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #70 of Discerning What Is Best, a podcast applying unchanging biblical principles in a rapidly changing world, and a Christian worldview to current issues and everyday life.
Any number of trends can be identified on social media because it is a dynamic environment.
There may be good trends, of course, because human beings created in the image of God are capable of making right moral choices and doing noble things.
But human beings are also fallen, meaning we have a sin nature and are capable, in fact active, on a daily basis of making bad or wrong moral choices and doing ignoble things. That’s where some disturbing social media trends emerge relative to something now called “body image.”
When I say “social media” here, I am not alluding to pornographic subscription sites but to Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, TikTok and a few others that are readily accessible to the public including children.
It’s interesting to note the number of so-called “online influencers,” mostly women, who regularly post scantily clad pictures of themselves and seek to justify their actions by claiming they are affirming “body positivity.”
They argue that they are doing something wonderful and meaningful in the name of “female empowerment,” but basically what they are doing is demeaning themselves in order to get likes, fans, followers, and in some cases, financial reward.
I’ve mentioned before that older, now no longer top tier entertainers, work to stay relevant in social media. Since their talent is no longer in demand or perhaps they are past their creative zenith, the only way many women celebrities can get attention is to post near naked or suggestive pictures of themselves.
Some do this as a business proposition in order to market what they are wearing, like bikinis or casual wear, while others do so because it’s all they’ve got to—what was that—“stay relevant.”
To attempt to justify what they are doing and raise it to some perceived lofty level, some aging models or celebrities talk about “authenticity.” They claim they must post these pictures to be “true to themselves.” This is their “identity,” and they say everyone should “love yourself” or “find your true self.”
Some claim they post au naturel images because, somehow, this is good for their “mental health.” They say they have “overcome self-judgement” and that one should be comfortable “loving yourself in your own skin.” Some claim they are fighting the good fight against the emotional struggle of “body dysmorphia.” Others just get right to the point and declare they are “sex positive.” The new vocabulary and rationales offered for what was once considered scandalous and prurient behavior are endless.
The Women’s Liberation movement of the 1970s plowed new ground for women in society, making headway opening professional doors, lobbying for equal pay for equal work, and promoting equality for women in general. Unfortunately, radical feminists took this movement and ran with it, some ending up in an untenable hate-all-men outlook. But there are still some now seasoned warriors who just want women to be given equal opportunities in society.
More recently, the long overdue MeToo movement called powerful, immoral men to account. Some, like the infamous Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby, were demonstrated to be predators and rightly sent to prison, though sadly, Cosby’s sentence was later overturned.
Others, caddish men who took advantage of their power and prestige to prey on women, men like Matt Lauer, Charlie Rose, Bill O’Reilly, had enough money to settle the allegations against them but still lost their high-profile media positions.
Then, MeToo began to run aground with slogans like “believe the woman,” a comment that seems just and indeed helps correct old patterns wherein women were summarily dismissed, but in actuality, “believe the woman” as an absolute elevates demography above evidence-based truth.
Result is, we have a confused public understanding of male-female relationships and social media only adds to the confusion.
Among the younger set, Generation Z now in college, as of July 2021, university athletes are now able to make financial arrangements based upon their NIL, meaning Name, Image, Likeness. This new pot of gold suddenly available to university athletes means the best known, most talented, and of course the best looking, can make a lot of NIL money. Many NIL arrangements are endorsement contracts with clothing manufacturers or other legitimate businesses. I’m not suggesting there is anything is wrong with the free enterprise of athletes making income.
But I think unregulated NIL opportunities, the transfer portal making it possible for any recruit to switch schools in a moment, and the wide-open university athletic conferences, now jockeying for television money, means collegiate sports is in for a confusing time that almost inevitably is going to result in some kind of scandal.
Remember, the love of money is the root of all evil.
Some female university athletes are already making hay based on their looks, and their willingness to post titillating videos. By far, the lead example of this is Louisiana State University gymnast, Olivia Dunne, who is now reputedly making seven figures per year for her posts.
No question she is a talented and accomplished athlete with several gymnastic accomplishments.
But increasingly, Olivia Dunne and her peers are providing their huge followings on TikTok, YouTube, and Instagram with content that pushes past simple storylines or marketing clothing into what critics say is playing into the “objectifying women” scenarios that the Women’s Liberation and MeToo Movements railed against.
In fact, older women who fought those earlier social battles, some of whom are avowed feminists, argue today’s young women are taking a backward step, undoing much of what women fought for in the 70s, including the major achievement of Title IX that prohibited sex based discrimination in school athletic programs.
The interesting comeback from the young, online influences is that while men may objectify women, the online influencer women say they are not responsible for what men think or how they behave. In other words, they push back, saying we can do whatever we want, and we have no accountability to anyone.
Maybe it all depends? It’s true, a woman cannot control how a man thinks, or if he thinks improper thoughts, it’s not her doing. On the other hand, if the woman, particularly these online influencers, post provocative, semi-clad pictures and videos intended to attract followings, can they really claim they have no responsibility? Such an argument seems a long way from the honorable women described in Proverbs 31.
This said, men also use social media to make money based upon sex appeal. They “run the gamut from gamers and fitness influencers to singers, pranksters, and even doctors.”
None of this should be surprising. Human beings tend to pervert anything we get our hands, or rather our hearts, on, including now social media. Why would we expect anything different from the world?
We should, though, be able to expect different behavior from Christians. We should not spend time on sites designed by online influencers to entice, to tempt, to draw us in. We should not emulate the world by employing the same provocative poses in images and videos—something I’ve seen younger Christians do on Facebook and other social media platforms.
Rather, we should work to proclaim the Lordship of Christ in all of life, including our social media activity. This is a worthy kind of online influence.
Well, we’ll see you again soon. This podcast is about Discerning What Is Best. If you find this thought-provoking and helpful, follow us on your favorite podcast platform. Download an episode for your friends. For more Christian commentary, check my website, r-e-x-m as in Martin, that’s rexmrogers.com.
And remember, it is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm.
© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2023
*This podcast blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact me or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com/, or connect with me at www.linkedin.com/in/rexmrogers.
1--I like it, whether or not I agree, when politicians speak truth as they understand it based upon their principles, especially when what they say seems to undermine their preferred outcome, i.e., is not to their advantage. Like Walter Cronkite said, "And that's the way it is."
2--I dislike it, in fact they lose me, when politicians make statements that can easily be debunked with even the most cursory review of evidence, which they nevertheless argue because the "narrative" is to their advantage. Like Stephen Colbert said, "Truthiness - It used to be, everyone was entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. But that's not the case anymore. Facts matter not at all."
3--I'm a staunch proponent of the First Amendment, i.e., freedom of speech, so I consider Big Tech/Social Media and Big Media's increasing censorship of information and points of view they believe is "misinformation" or "dangerous" and does not align with their version of the "publicly acceptable narrative" (e.g., earlier, views re the pandemic, now partisan politics) fundamentally un-American, Orwellian, and a serious threat to free democratic society. I say this re all points of view on the ideological spectrum.
© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2020
*This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact me or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com/, or connect with me at www.linkedin.com/in/rexmrogers.
A recent Facebook audit comes from ongoing public pressure, not just from conservatives but from liberal civil rights groups and corporations. The conservatives tend to want more protection of free speech, and there is already a lot of evidence of Facebook or YouTube blocking content some committee determined dangerous (e.g., about C-19).
The liberals tend to want to block speech or advertising they consider hate speech or otherwise just unacceptable in terms of the latest politically correct or ideological pantheon of social crimes. It's actually the liberals putting on the most pressure right now. FB and YT have also blocked Christian content (even Prager U videos about the 10 Commandments).
How they get away with this so far is that they are deemed private enterprises and "publishers," meaning they get to determine what's on their sites. This is protected by their First Amendment rights.
But then again, they also bill themselves as "public forums" where all manner of ideas can be discussed, and if you add Google, which owns YT, FB that owns Instagram, and Twitter, which also censors tweets, you could say they're actually info monopolies. As public forums and as monopolies or nearly so on information communication, it would seem the First Amendment should apply.
So for now, Big Info Tech is clearly suppressing conservative content they don't like and not blocking enough content liberals deem censorable.
None of this is good for the First Amendment or free and pluralistic democracy.
© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2020
*This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact me or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com/, or connect with me at www.linkedin.com/in/rexmrogers.
Social media is great for relationship building but is not good at fostering critical thinking, analysis, or reasoned debate.
People post emotionally, not that this is illegitimate in itself. Emotions are genuine expressions of human feeling and as such are important. But emotions that don’t or can’t allow a focus upon the facts or science or even just another person’s point of view are ultimately not helpful.
June 2018, I wrote an article entitled, “The Death of Discussion.” This was long before the experience of the current coronavirus pandemic. I argued that “We’ve come to a point in a so-called post-truth or fake news culture (and Church?) in which polarization is so pronounced we can no longer communicate, resulting in a virtual inability to discuss, much less debate, any social-political issue without becoming defensively partisan, ideological, or upset.” This is still taking place and is now, in my view, worse than it was.
The COVID-19 crisis has pitted partisans and ideologues, Big Media coverage-qua-hype that stirs up the populace, and a long list of “experts” against one another. Social media has exploded with the same. Social media may work to alert or get out a word but is not good at encouraging adults in the room to think beyond the short-term.
I’m not saying social media is “bad” or a curse upon the land. No, in fact it gives access to people who might not otherwise have a place to express their opinion, or Yes, their feelings. What I’m saying, though, is that for good stewardship of a country or company and long-term decision-making, social media leaves a lot to be desired.
Unless you are a person with a significant following social media is limited. You post your ideas, attitudes, or feelings to basically the same audience of friends, fans, or followers day after day. Same people. If you really want to influence the body politic, post in a blog or on a website, or publish somewhere online so your content is searchable and open to the www, the “world-wide” web, not just your social media BFFs.
Social media invites off-the-cuff commentary. Nothing wrong with this per se, but it seems for many this is as far as it goes. Social media is a shoot-off-your-mouth methodology. More heat than light and, again, this approach offers little that actually informs, helps, or persuades us.
If you doubt me, post a nonpartisan comment about a current issue, maybe when the United States should attempt to reboot its economy in the wake of spring 2020 coronavirus pandemic sheltering in place orders. Then watch what happens. You’ll get emotional diatribes, ranting, partisan slants, some using insulting terms to refer to leaders on the other side, childish memes, and accusations. You won’t get much reasoned consideration. I know. I’ve tried this.
I will say that social media is a good tool to encourage connectivity with family, friends, colleagues, and new acquaintances. Various platforms like LinkedIn, Facebook, or just Whatsapp can facilitate keeping in touch with others’ lives. And this is a blessing of the Information Age.
That’s where I’ll leave this. Social media works for “social.” It does not work for informed discussion, debate, or decision-making. My advice if you need the latter? Look online for another outlet.
© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2020
*This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact me or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com/, or connect with me at www.linkedin.com/in/rexmrogers.
I've read more than my share of rants, angst, attacks, put-downs and more on my social media pages. These posts originate on both the Left and the Right and make it their purpose to pollute the air. Problem is, these kinds of posts add nothing, just more of the same.
I encourage people to post what they Think. Tell me Why you like or dislike something, Why you hold your views, and try to persuade me your view is correct.
Here's a short article with some social media recommendations on creating value-added posts.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/value-added-social-media-posts-rex-m-rogers/
I’m weary up to my ears with angry, cynical, gotcha, this-political-leader’s-latest-dumb-thing social media posts. These posts originate on both the Left and the Right, and they overrun my social media.
It’s a free country (though recently, some folks seem to want to silence anyone with whom they disagree). So, I get that people can post whatever they want. And I get that people will have differing points of view—actually, this is healthy in a free society—so this piece is not arguing for you to change your views.
But aside from this, it’s a free country for me, too, so I’m going to share a few recommendations for social media posting.
Social media posts that offer nothing but another put-down of given leaders and/or their actions, or offer another rant, or throw shade on someone, do not help me much. These posts may help the posting-person to vent, but the posts don’t develop my understanding of his or her point of view. And such posts don’t really offer any substantive ideas to persuade me toward a different view. They just express angst.
What kind of social media posts actually make impact?
If you implement these simple approaches to your social media posts, you’ll soon be offering your readers value added, something they haven’t heard or maybe cannot get elsewhere, and your number of followers will increase. You might even persuade them to your point of view.
Post all you want. Raise the bar with value-added commentary and make a contribution to public discourse in the body politic.
© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2020
*This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact me or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com/, or connect with me at www.linkedin.com/in/rexmrogers.